We’re going
to need all of our available energy resources – wind, solar, nuclear and coal
– to meet future energy needs. We'll also need to continue to promote energy
efficiency, but at the end of the day coal use will continue to grow both here
at home and around the world in order to meet electricity needs.

There has
never been an environmental challenge facing the coal-based electricity sector
for which technology has not provided the ultimate solution. In fact, today’s
coal-generated power fleet is 77 percent
cleaner than ever before, and we're moving forward with new technologies
that can be used to retrofit new and existing coal plants to meet requirements
to capture and safely store CO2.

I was reading the latest headlines on CNN.com a moment ago when I saw a flash ad by GE.

In the ad, GE Vice Chairman John Krenicki says,”The only way to solve the energy challenge is through technology.”

He says that the solution will be in technology investments in “biomass, renewables, natural gas, nuclear, cleaner coal, subsea exploration, cleaning up water…”

After watching the ad, I have to say… I agree. We’re going to need all of our domestic resources to meet the rise in electricity demand. I would add, of course, that our most abundant fuel source, coal, is going to continue to play a key role in meeting the energy challenge.

Note: General Electric Capital Corporation is a member of our organization.

The Virginia carbon sequestration project will inject carbon dioxide
(CO2) into 300 million-year old rock strata, which will permanently hold the
CO2 and keep it from entering the atmosphere. What’s more, the entrapment of
CO2 in the rock strata is believed to aid in the release of natural gas trapped
in coal seams—another domestic energy source.

“When we inject the carbon dioxide into the Mississippian aged coal
deposits that were deposited 260-340 million years ago, the CO2 will stay there
permanently,” said Marshall Miller, CEO of Marshall Miller and Associates, the
geological firm participating in the joint venture. “The good situation is that
out from the coal seam comes a gas, CH4, (methane) that gives you additional
fuel.”

2009 looks like it will be an exciting
year for science, technology and innovation in the U.S.

It’s
apparent that the creators of the Reality Coalition TV spots didn’t spend much
time locating current clean coal technology projects before
declaring them nonexistent. After all, we have a map of
them right here on our Web site. (And remember, ‘clean coal’ refers to more than just carbon capture and sequestration.)

The projects include a host of CCS pilot-level projects (hey, you have to run
before you can walk), many of which are co-funded by the coal industry and the
government. Of course, if this is going to be a battle of absolutes, I guess it
should also be noted that there isn’t a single commercial scale wind or
solar project capable of replacing baseload fuels like coal.

On a related
note, I noticed that our friends at the Reality Coalition attributed a
(selective) quote of mine on their web site. While I did state that we
currently lack a commercial-scale CCS project in the U.S., I went on to say
that there are several live pilot-scale demonstration projects in the U.S., and
that the first commercial-scale project is set to launch in 2009. I guess
accuracy in the media isn’t what it used to be.

Fortunately,
there may be a way to capture the CO2 produced as coal is burned and sequester
it safely to prevent it from adding to the climate crisis. It is not easy. This
technique, known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is expensive and
most users of coal have resisted the investments necessary to use it. However,
when the cost of not using it is calculated, it becomes obvious that CCS
will play a significant and growing role as one of the major building blocks of
a solution to the climate crisis.

So I guess I
don’t understand—the environmental groups following a person who believes clean
coal technology can help prevent climate change are the same groups that oppose
the clean coal projects they claim don’t exist?

Today, I'll dispel a myth about addressing climate change concerns. Some people say that if it takes 10-15 years for power plants with carbon capture and storage to come online, it will be too late.

Well, maybe they need to check again.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said this week that there is no clear evidence that climate change represents an immenent danger to the world.

Don't start hyper-ventilating! I'm just using Dr. Puchauri's comments show that we don't have to run around with our hair on fire. We've got time to bring new technologies to the marketplace to capture and store CO2, and we should be having a discussion about that.

Our industry is serious about bringing new advanced technologies for carbon capture and storage to the point of widespread deployment. Need convincing? Look take a look at the map of demonstration projects that the industry is already helping to fund.

Moreover, as we increase funding for all energy research and development programs, we say that there needs to be additional dollars set aside to match the industry's investment in bringing this new generation of new clean coal technologies into the marketplace. That stands in stark contrast to other groups, which have consistently opposed additional funding for advanced coal research and development.

So let's get focused on what we know: coal use both here in the U.S. and around the world will continue to grow, meaning that reducing CO2 emissions will require new advanced clean coal technologies. And according to the head of the IPCC, we've got time to bring those technologies to the marketplace (and nobody is saying we should delay!).

Yesterday, one of my blog readers chimed in to say that he thought I'm being "dismissive" of environmental groups. He also wrote that the America's Power campaign has more money to spend on marketing than the major environmental groups.

I responded in the comment area, but for those who didn't see it… I'll paste it below. Here was my response:

Ben:

I do appreciate your comment and honestly try very avoid the direct confrontation.

I consider myself an environmentalist — I think we all do.

However, with respect to your claim that we have more resources, I beg to differ. In 2008, the Alliance for Climate Protection was reportedly ready to spend $100 million on their campaign efforts (and that was just one group).

Now, I don't know what they will actually end up spending, but this is definitely not David vs. Goliath as your comment suggests.

But again, I agree with you — this is not a "we" versus "them" dialogue. In the end, I do believe we all want the same thing: affordable, reliable energy (with as much of that being supplied by domestic energy resources as possible) and a clean environment.

I promise to do better (and Megan will help me!) keep my passion about these issues in check.

The Clean
Coal Carolers are
getting a lot of attention around the Internet this week. I'm not
surprised that people who don't think coal has any place in America's
energy future don't seem to appreciate the clean coal carolers.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, for example, didn't like the the use of "Silent Night" in our original group of songs.

I'll put my years as a Sunday school teacher, church deacon and church musician up against just about anybody else when it comes to understanding hymnology and respect for religious traditions.

That said, before we even received one response to our blog, we decided to remove the "Silent Night" tune from the Clean Coal Caroler feature.

That's not to say that we agree with Rachel Maddow's claim that it was inappropriate. It is merely a recognition that the facts of promoting energy independence, keeping energy costs affordable and investing in new technologies to make coal an even cleaner energy option is so important, we don't want there to be any impediment for getting that message out.

But remember that this cuts both ways. So you might want to be sure that we'll make our list and check it twice for things we might find offensive too.

Mike Duncan is the president and CEO for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and promoting the use of coal...
Read Full Biography +

Laura SheehanSenior Vice President
Communications

Laura Sheehan is a seasoned public affairs expert with more than a 20-year track record in policy communications, media relations, crisis and issues management, community and...
Read Full Biography +

Julia TreanorSenior Director
Communications

Julia Treanor is a strategic communications and public affairs professional with nearly 10 years of experience in digital strategy, issue advocacy, political communications, media ...
Read Full Biography +

Jade DavisSenior Director
State Affairs and Outreach

Jade Davis is the Senior Director of State Affairs and Outreach at ACCCE. In his current role, Jade works with ACCCE’s regional and communications staff and government affairs staff ...
Read Full Biography +

Darian GhorbiDirector
Policy Analysis

Darian Ghorbi is the Director of Policy Analysis at ACCCE. Prior to joining ACCCE, Darian spent five years working for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Read Full Biography +

Elizabeth JenningsCommunications Specialist

Elizabeth Jennings is ACCCE’s Communications Specialist acting as an integral part of our communications team. She works to expand the reach of our message through traditional and new media platforms....
Read Full Biography +

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is committed to the idea that America can have the affordable, reliable electricity we need, with the clean environment we want. ACCCE’s Behind the Plug blog is the place for up-to-date news and analysis on clean coal technology developments and energy policy progress.
We encourage commenting and discussion on Behind the Plug, but we ask that you refrain from comments that are:

spam or hawking a product;

abusive, defamatory or obscene

fraudulent, deceptive or misleading;

in violation of any law or regulation; or

otherwise offensive (graphically or in tone).

Please note that ACCCE is not responsible for the accuracy of opinions, claims, advice or other information shared here by ACCCE fans.